[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Bollocks. A few years ago a bunch British cunts from amnesty international managed to put a gun control law to a vote in Brazil. When they rejected it by a two thirds majority amnesty tried to blame their loss on lobbying by the gun industry rather than accept that the Brazilians have a legitimate need for guns.
People like you are a threat, so stop trying to play coy.
really? I am a threat? Wow, I am honored that you think my comments carry so much weight.
Hunting and other sports are irrelevant. Americans have the right to keep and bear arms so they can protect themselves.
Why and from whom?
[/quote]
From Uncle Sam, and also, for personal defense. From crackheads and such. [quote]
Try telling that to my neighbors in Detroit.
Do you have a phone number or e-mail address, they won’t hear me shout. By the way, will they not think it strange that I am calling? Maybe you could forewarn them.
[/quote]
Crime rates in detroit is notoriously high, its full off murders, robberies and car-jackings. Its like the wild west, only wilder, but not as far west. Fucking crackheads. Why dont you tell me where you live so I can hand deliver the information you have requested. I promise not to rape you.
[quote]
You are the one who is not questioning. You have been filled full of British liberal swill and now you are spewing it at us without thinking.
I have already freely admitted that my views are the product of my upbringing (and Macguyver.) Oh and if you think Britain is on the whole Liberal, you have not spent much time there. Try reading a copy of the Mirror or the Daily Mail.
Again you are very wrong. Americans are raised to not put blind faith and trust in the government no matter how wonderful they may think it is. Rod Blagojevich shows that this healthy distrust of government is as relevant today as it ever was.
Americans also are very supportive of individual freedom and independence. Unlike the British who want people to be as dependent upon the government as possible.
Today Europe and Britain in particular are a slow motion train wreck. The reason why you all want to talk so much trash about the US is because it is easier to point out faults in others than it is to admit to your own problems and deal with them.
I fully admit the problems in the UK and in Mexico and in my small part do whatever I can to try to improve the situation. And I agree that it is easier to spot fault in others than yourself, actually this is a concept that I have previously mentioned pertaining to the USA.[/quote]
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
To say that everyone has the right to bear arms because it says so in the second amendment is not an argument, it is an article of faith, the same as saying you shouldn’t work on the Sabbath because it says so in the ten commandments.
[/quote]
Anyone who says that the right to keep and bear arms originates from the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is mistaken. The right to keep and bear arms originates from the basic human right of self defense, to include deadly force where there is an imminent threat to an innocent life. In the United States we take that basic human right seriously and have codified the right in the 2nd Amendment. The right to self defense would be no right at all if it weren’t equally available to the weak, old and infirm, as well as able bodied. That’s where guns level the playing field.
You said that philosophical debate doesn’t normally start from fact, it starts from assumptions or ideas. Do you believe self defense is a basic human right?
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
To say that everyone has the right to bear arms because it says so in the second amendment is not an argument, it is an article of faith, the same as saying you shouldn’t work on the Sabbath because it says so in the ten commandments.
Anyone who says that the right to keep and bear arms originates from the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is mistaken. The right to keep and bear arms originates from the basic human right of self defense, to include deadly force where there is an imminent threat to an innocent life. In the United States we take that basic human right seriously and have codified the right in the 2nd Amendment. The right to self defense would be no right at all if it weren’t equally available to the weak, old and infirm, as well as able bodied. That’s where guns level the playing field.
You said that philosophical debate doesn’t normally start from fact, it starts from assumptions or ideas. Do you believe self defense is a basic human right?
[/quote]
It goes deeper than that.
Do you own yourself?
For if you do, what is that worth in the grand scheme of things if you cannot defend yourself against an unwarranted attack?
Self-ownership and therefore freedom is impossible with without the right to defend yourself.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
For rainman and the various other people on the Justin Eilers thread who have a real hard time understanding a basic point.
In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.
Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice. If there had been no guns in Justin Eiler’s murderer’s houes, there is a good likelihood that no-one would have died. the root cause of the problem was drink and aggression, the gun turned a bad situation into a nightmare.
I would suggest that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.
Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in underprivilaged communities in the US and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.
OK, lets see if people can respond to this without the need to resort to name calling, offensive language or straw man arguments.[/quote]
I personally feel that the majority of violence in my country as well as your country revolves around the war on drugs
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I take a couple of days off from TN and lo and behold, what do I find when I return? The omniscient British guy living in Mexico farting from the mouth again about what is best for Americans in regards to their self defense.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For rainman and the various other people on the Justin Eilers thread who have a real hard time understanding a basic point.
In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.
Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice. If there had been no guns in Justin Eiler’s murderer’s houes, there is a good likelihood that no-one would have died. the root cause of the problem was drink and aggression, the gun turned a bad situation into a nightmare.
I would suggest that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.
Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in underprivilaged communities in the US and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.
OK, lets see if people can respond to this without the need to resort to name calling, offensive language or straw man arguments.
I personally feel that the majority of violence in my country as well as your country revolves around the war on drugs
[/quote]
I don’t know about the majority but it certainly doesn’t help.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
To say that everyone has the right to bear arms because it says so in the second amendment is not an argument, it is an article of faith, the same as saying you shouldn’t work on the Sabbath because it says so in the ten commandments.
Anyone who says that the right to keep and bear arms originates from the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is mistaken. The right to keep and bear arms originates from the basic human right of self defense, to include deadly force where there is an imminent threat to an innocent life. In the United States we take that basic human right seriously and have codified the right in the 2nd Amendment. The right to self defense would be no right at all if it weren’t equally available to the weak, old and infirm, as well as able bodied. That’s where guns level the playing field.
You said that philosophical debate doesn’t normally start from fact, it starts from assumptions or ideas. Do you believe self defense is a basic human right?
[/quote]
I don’t think you can actually make a list of basic human rights that is truly meaningful in the real world.
Yes in most circumstances then someone should have the right to defend themselves and I would support them doing that. I don’t think that equates to everyone buying a gun though.
Where do you draw the line? If I buy a gun for defence, the person attacking me needs a bigger gun, now we have escalation.
I really don’t think that there is much point continuing this debate in this way. We are at the point that there is a fundemental difference of beliefs (and I accept that it is just a belief on my part, and I hold no anger for people who hold a different belief.)
There is a fair chance that at some point I will end up living in a country with differnt gun laws and situations, who knows how my beliefs would change under those circumstances. I know several Americans who moved to the UK and found over time that some of their deep held beliefs about the American system changed.
Thank you to the people who have civilly tried to debate the point. Sorry to those who felt so attacked by a few comments and questions from an outsider that they felt the need to rage.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes in most circumstances then someone should have the right to defend themselves and I would support them doing that. I don’t think that equates to everyone buying a gun though.
Where do you draw the line? If I buy a gun for defence, the person attacking me needs a bigger gun, now we have escalation.[/quote]
Ahhh, just when we got to the root of the debate …
By the way, how would my attacker know how big my gun is? I carry concealed. The other alternative, and actually the economically reasonable one, is the attacker just looks for less dangerous ways to earn money. Win-win situation.
Just got back from the gun show. The Sisters of the Second Amendment had a table. They were selling shirts that said:
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes in most circumstances then someone should have the right to defend themselves and I would support them doing that. I don’t think that equates to everyone buying a gun though.
Where do you draw the line? If I buy a gun for defence, the person attacking me needs a bigger gun, now we have escalation.
Ahhh, just when we got to the root of the debate …
By the way, how would my attacker know how big my gun is? I carry concealed. The other alternative, and actually the economically reasonable one, is the attacker just looks for less dangerous ways to earn money. Win-win situation.
Just got back from the gun show. The Sisters of the Second Amendment had a table. They were selling shirts that said:
Guns, the ultimate in feminine protection.
[/quote]
I think we could find a compromise here:
As long as you can carry it concealed it should definitely legal.
[quote]orion wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes in most circumstances then someone should have the right to defend themselves and I would support them doing that. I don’t think that equates to everyone buying a gun though.
Where do you draw the line? If I buy a gun for defence, the person attacking me needs a bigger gun, now we have escalation.
Ahhh, just when we got to the root of the debate …
By the way, how would my attacker know how big my gun is? I carry concealed. The other alternative, and actually the economically reasonable one, is the attacker just looks for less dangerous ways to earn money. Win-win situation.
Just got back from the gun show. The Sisters of the Second Amendment had a table. They were selling shirts that said:
Guns, the ultimate in feminine protection.
I think we could find a compromise here:
As long as you can carry it concealed it should definitely legal.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you are getting at. I’m also not sure if we disagree.
Self defense (to include justifiable deadly force) is a basic human right. In the state where I live, if I justifiably use lethal force to defend myself (with a gun), no crime has been committed and I won’t be arrested.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
orion wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes in most circumstances then someone should have the right to defend themselves and I would support them doing that. I don’t think that equates to everyone buying a gun though.
Where do you draw the line? If I buy a gun for defence, the person attacking me needs a bigger gun, now we have escalation.
Ahhh, just when we got to the root of the debate …
By the way, how would my attacker know how big my gun is? I carry concealed. The other alternative, and actually the economically reasonable one, is the attacker just looks for less dangerous ways to earn money. Win-win situation.
Just got back from the gun show. The Sisters of the Second Amendment had a table. They were selling shirts that said:
Guns, the ultimate in feminine protection.
I think we could find a compromise here:
As long as you can carry it concealed it should definitely legal.
I’m not sure what you are getting at. I’m also not sure if we disagree.
Self defense (to include justifiable deadly force) is a basic human right. In the state where I live, if I justifiably use lethal force to defend myself (with a gun), no crime has been committed and I won’t be arrested.[/quote]
This was an attempt at humor.
I obviously failed.
Since he worries what happens if people pack bigger and bigger guns and you are for concealed carrying, I think you could agree that guns that are small enough that they actually can be concealed should be ok.
[quote]orion wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
orion wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes in most circumstances then someone should have the right to defend themselves and I would support them doing that. I don’t think that equates to everyone buying a gun though.
Where do you draw the line? If I buy a gun for defence, the person attacking me needs a bigger gun, now we have escalation.
Ahhh, just when we got to the root of the debate …
By the way, how would my attacker know how big my gun is? I carry concealed. The other alternative, and actually the economically reasonable one, is the attacker just looks for less dangerous ways to earn money. Win-win situation.
Just got back from the gun show. The Sisters of the Second Amendment had a table. They were selling shirts that said:
Guns, the ultimate in feminine protection.
I think we could find a compromise here:
As long as you can carry it concealed it should definitely legal.
I’m not sure what you are getting at. I’m also not sure if we disagree.
Self defense (to include justifiable deadly force) is a basic human right. In the state where I live, if I justifiably use lethal force to defend myself (with a gun), no crime has been committed and I won’t be arrested.
This was an attempt at humor.
I obviously failed.
Since he worries what happens if people pack bigger and bigger guns and you are for concealed carrying, I think you could agree that guns that are small enough that they actually can be concealed should be ok.[/quote]
Ahhh, got it. On that note, just bought a S&W Model 37 (38 Special). Fits very nicely in my pants pocket.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For rainman and the various other people on the Justin Eilers thread who have a real hard time understanding a basic point.
In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.
Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice. If there had been no guns in Justin Eiler’s murderer’s houes, there is a good likelihood that no-one would have died. the root cause of the problem was drink and aggression, the gun turned a bad situation into a nightmare.
I would suggest that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.
Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in underprivilaged communities in the US and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.
OK, lets see if people can respond to this without the need to resort to name calling, offensive language or straw man arguments.
I personally feel that the majority of violence in my country as well as your country revolves around the war on drugs
I don’t know about the majority but it certainly doesn’t help.[/quote]
Most of the violence from gangs revolves around drug sales profits or drug deals gone bad, or rip offs. I live on the border with Mexico and in the border towns most of the violence is rivaling drug cartels, I don?t know how many millions of dollars America sends to Mexico to help finance the American Drug War.
I also believe that if the Drug Cartels were not getting their guns from American markets they would be getting them from China or Russia.
I would like to retire to Mexico one day, but as it stands now I would not because I am not allowed to defend my self.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes in most circumstances then someone should have the right to defend themselves and I would support them doing that. I don’t think that equates to everyone buying a gun though.
Where do you draw the line? If I buy a gun for defence, the person attacking me needs a bigger gun, now we have escalation.
[/quote]
Here is something you may be missing. No one has the right to attack another person. That is why it is considered a criminal offense and can be defended by the use of force, deadly when warranted. In the example you presented, the attacker is commiting a crime and the escalation.
Where do you draw the line? You either draw it before everybody or after everybody.
That is to say that if any one person is allowed to posses a weapon, then every person covered under that rule of law is allowed to. Otherwise, no one is allowed to have one. That is an equal right, applied to one as it is to all.
The main disqualifier from this is if a person has been found guilty of committing a violent felony, and therefore forfeited the right.
Or, if I were to intentionally misinterpret your last question, I would say-
A 12 guage slug. You can’t escalate much beyond that without going into heavy artillery. Thats why I have one here at home. It will go through any intruder or intruders for that matter, and the line can be drawn around their bodies at that point.
Because I wanted to make sure before I take the piss out of you. You are a typical British liberal spouting off all of their worn out cliches about gun ownership. I am very familiar with your type.
You wrote that drinking was involved with the Eilers case so I pointed out that drinking is the cause of most violence. What happened there is nothing new domestic violence happens all over the world and it doesn’t need a gun to make it deadly.
On the other hand if a woman is the target of domestic violence, a gun in her hands can level the playing field. ie Nicole Simpson might still be here and we would be remembering O.J. Simpson as the fool who took a knife to a gunfight.
[quote]
Yeah I read what you wrote in the combat sports thread about there being a difference between guns and a bat or a knife in that the latter require adaptation. Which is simply not true. You can grab a knife or a bat and use them right away with no adaptation required. Stab wounds can be deadlier than a bullet.
That is not what I meant by adapting. Deadly bullet wounds are just as deadly as deadly stab wounds however killing someone with a gun is easier than killing them with a bat or a knife. This is why the army is not going into Bagdhad waving baseball bats. [/quote]
Guns are good at long range. If you get into the confines of a house a gun loses some of it’s advantage.
Depending on the caliber of the gun and the size of a knife, the kinds of wounds you can cause with a knife can be deadlier than a bullet.
The simple fact that your ilk choose to ignore is that there are all manner of potential weapons in our environment many of which can be quite deadly. Yet despite this easy access to all kinds of deadly weapons people don’t just grab the nearest one and kill someone because they are angry or upset. The same applies to guns. A person who is going to use a gun is just as likely to use something else if a gun isn’t available. So your premise is wrong guns don’t make it easier to kill.
[quote]
CCW licenses are issued but are hard to obtain for anyone not wealthy and without political connections. In the event that an application is denied, the denial may theoretically be appealed at a District Court, but this never occurs in practice.
Prior to 2002, CCW licenses could be obtained authorizing military caliber pistols. However, these CCW licenses were all cancelled, and re-issued to authorize only up to .380 ACP caliber pistolas.
you might want to wade a bit deeper than a quick glance at wikipedia to have a true understanding of situations. Weapons licenses are relatively easy to get and illegal weapons are very easy to get. Most people do not carry eather. [/quote]
The kinds of weapons that are legal are not equivalent to the kinds of weaponry being used by Mexican criminals. And you sure as hell don’t want to end up serving a lengthy sentence in a hellhole Mexican prison if you get caught with an illegal weapon or carrying illegally.
Most people don’t carry because most people can’t afford the price of a ccw and they are not connected politically. They used to have the same system in Michigan.
[quote]
It is not that unusual. I didn’t say they were trying to paint the police in a good light and I wasn’t trying to imply it either. But that revision of the article is typical of the mentality of many in Britain who are against gun ownership.
Yes it is, yes you did, no it isn’t, in that order. [/quote]
Again you are wrong there is a lot of violent crime in Britain. In some ways Britain is much more violent than America.
No I did not say the Telegraph was trying to paint the police in a good light. What the telegraph did do is edit the story so it doesn’t relate the fact that the police were useless. Here is an article from another newpaper that does tell what has been going on in that area for the last five years.
Villagers said there had been a spate of robberies at other sub-post offices and convenience stores in neighbouring villages over the last five years.
Three years ago, a gang attacked a Royal Mail delivery driver outside Lickey post office, just three miles away.
A gun was fired, shattering the counter glass, in another raid at the same post office almost a decade ago.
The post office at the nearby village of Cofton Hackett has also been targeted twice in the last four years, along with a string of convenience stores.
Gordon Witcomb, chairman of the parish council in neighbouring Catshill and North Marlbrook, said that there seemed to be a ‘pattern’ of at least six other raids on stores in villages near the M5.
[quote]
When there are armed robbers going around robbing the neighboring stores and the police have been unable to put a stop to it a logical solution is to allow the people working in the stores to arm themselves. The circumstances of this case demonstrate that need and the stupidity of being totally dependent upon the police.
Great, shootouts in grocery stores between a minimum wage saturday boy and glue sniffing crook. No chance of innocent bystanders getting shot there then. [/quote]
Cliche old boy! Rather! It wouldn’t be proper for the Saturday boy to have a gun to defend himself he’s a minimum wage earner. That makes him working class. Only a man who is of a certain station in life should have such a capability.
The problem with that of course is that the shopkeeper who was shot and killed in the Fairfield post office robbery was a 29 year old grown man and the other man who was shot was his 56 year old father.
Your invocation of the glue sniffing crook speaks volumes about your mentality. You liberals see nothing wrong with rendering people defenseless and leaving them at the mercy of gunmen who are strung out on drugs. In fact you feel so strongly about giving drug using criminals who don’t give a damn about the law the upper hand that you say that anyone who is caught with a gun should be charged with attempted murder and given a lengthy sentence.
By the way innocent bystanders have been shot and killed by armed robbers who were meeting no resistance. So you are full of shit.
You are a real piece of work old boy.
[quote]
Tony Bliar and Gordon Brown both have firearm carrying policemen as guards at the front door of No 10 Downing street. Obviously they feel that unlike commoners their lives are worthy of being defended with firearms. It is a classic case of do as I say not as I do.
There are lots of people who want to kill Tony Bliar [sic] (if that was deliberate I applaud it, the guy was odious) and Gordon Brown, that is why they get armed guards. It is not that there life is more worthy of saving, it’s that the risk of the gun being needed is far higher. [/quote]
Bullshit. There are a lot of people in this world who are risk of being assaulted raped or murdered. Bliar and McBroon are not unique. But they are hypocrites, because they don’t walk what they talk. If they think it is so bloody wonderful to be defenseless they should be willing to accept and experience the exact same conditions that they have unfairly forced upon everyone else. Instead of having a heavily armed Special Branch firearms team that everyone knows is guarding them. Which is why we haven’t seen an armed assault upon the prime minister because people know damn well what they are going to be up against.
On the other hand, commoners like the men working at the Fairfield post office are much more at risk of being attacked. Especially when criminals know they won’t come up against armed resistance which invites attack. That post office had been raided before and the post office 3 miles away in Lickey had been robbed twice in the last ten years, with a gun fired during one of the robberies.
This time I have totally disproved what you wrote. But I have no doubt you will come back with some silly rationalization.
[quote]
Also, the armed guards are extremely highly trained and go through extensive screening processes. Something that is not true of the majority of people buying guns in the US. [/quote]
I have news for you old boy, a gun is not a complicated piece of machinery. It really doesn’t take much training to know how to use one. You just point and squeeze the trigger. Most of the screening and training armed guards go through is so they will have a better chance of winning a fight and going home alive.
[quote]
No I have not made any mention of manliness. As a matter of fact I know a good number of women who own and shoot guns. I think one of the things that makes America a truly great country is the fact that a woman can have such a tool to defend herself with, so she doesn’t have to be dependent upon a man to be her “protector”. It is all about independence.
there have been several references from other people on various threads that not supporting gun ownership for all is in some way not manly. [/quote]
Well when you talk like a little pansy bitch that will happen.
[quote]
Back there were settlers living on the frontier far away from any law enforcement who needed to be able to protect themselves from Indians and other marauders. Today people still need to be able to protect themselves from criminals so nothing has changed there.
So you truly believe that your risk of being attacked violently is as high as if you were living in the old west? Seriously? Honestly? [/quote]
I come from Detroit homeboy.
[quote]
Back during the revolution the Americans had to fight the worlds most powerful military in order to free themselves from a tyrannical government that would not respect their rights. Today if Americans wanted to rebel they would still have to fight the worlds most powerful military. So nothing has changed there.
The human genome hasn’t changed in two hundred years so a government made up of humans can still be just as tyrannical and corrupt as any other that has existed in history. So nothing has changed about us humans. So you are an ignorant twat for pretending that we have.
Care to give me any recent examples of people succesfully defending themselves using guns against the US tyranny? We have already mentione Waco, 0 for 1 for the gun club, any others? [/quote]
Now you are just being stupid. Just because an armed rebellion against the government hasn’t been necessary, that fact in no way affects the relevance of the Second amendment. Because it can reasonably be argued that the people retaining the ability of armed rebellion is a major incentive for the government not to push it’s luck.
Tiananmen Square showed that government tyranny is not a thing of the past. Just because for the last 236 years we have enjoyed the ultimate safeguard against that happening here it doesn’t mean “it can’t happen here” so we can remove our safeguard.
[quote]
Hunting is an irrelevant side issue that is not even worth discussing.
Agreed
The aspects of the human condition that the second amendment addresses are not going to change because genetically we are still the same. The oft used times have changed now argument is ignorant and fanciful. There are still tyrants, dictators, criminals thugs.
So since that has not changed, laws that are meant to deal with it are not outdated.
The second amendment was not about the human condition it was about the geopolitical condition at the time. [/quote]
You don’t know a damn thing about American history. The founding document that created the United States is the Declaration of Independence. The first 7 words of which are:
“When in the Course of human events”
The founding fathers were referring to the entirety of known human history when they made this country. If you really want to understand why we have the Second amendment you really should read the entire Declaration of Independence.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ? Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. ? And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
[quote]
Bollocks. You forget homeboy we live next door to Mexico, we know what is going on there.
Los Zetas is a paramilitary criminal gang that operates as a hired army for the Mexican Gulf Cartel.[1][2][3][4] The group is mostly composed of ex-soldiers now led by Heriberto “The Executioner” Lazcano. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) advises that these paramilitaries may be the most technologically advanced, sophisticated and violent of paramilitary enforcement groups.
The zetas were originally members of the Mexican Army?s elite Airborne Special Forces Group (GAFE), trained in locating and apprehending drug cartel members. It is believed that they were originally trained at the military School of the Americas in the United States,[6][7].
Also, they were trained by foreign specialists, including Americans, French, and Israelis, in rapid deployment, aerial assaults, marksmanship, ambushes, small-group tactics, intelligence collection, counter-surveillance techniques, prisoner rescues and sophisticated communications.
And your point is caller? I admited the country still has lots of problems. It’s still a lot better off than it was 20 years ago. [/quote]
My point is Mexico has major problems with organized crime. Problems that are made much much worse because the only people who can oppose the gangs are the government which is riddled with corruption. A lot of law enforcement works for the gangs or even worse they form their own gang. ie Los Zetas was a special paramilitary police force that was trained by the American Green Berets that went into business for itself.
[quote]
Corruption is on the decrease, police corruption and persecution is heavily punished when rooted out. The high profile police vs dug barron shoot outs are being caused by the fact that the government is actually starting to crack down on some of the problems. [/quote]
Mexico is still very corrupt. There is a big difference between taking out all the gangs and merely engaging in house cleaning and consolidation by taking out the smaller players who can’t buy off the right officials.
[quote]
The standard of living is steadily increasing. The economy is a lot stronger than it has been in the past. And the weather is great! [/quote]
Yet still there is only about 37 families that own just about everything in that country.
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Try telling that to my neighbors in Detroit.
Do you have a phone number or e-mail address, they won’t hear me shout. By the way, will they not think it strange that I am calling? Maybe you could forewarn them.
Crime rates in detroit is notoriously high, its full off murders, robberies and car-jackings. Its like the wild west, only wilder, but not as far west. Fucking crackheads. Why dont you tell me where you live so I can hand deliver the information you have requested. I promise not to rape you.
[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I take a couple of days off from TN and lo and behold, what do I find when I return? The omniscient British guy living in Mexico farting from the mouth again about what is best for Americans in regards to their self defense.
Adorable.[/quote]
Don’t you just love it?
Britain is experiencing such massive increases in violent crime that the government official responsible for law enforcement can’t go out for a walk in her constituency in the daytime without a police escort and body armor. Despite the rising crime there still are die hards like this guy who think that when it comes to dealing with crime Britain has it right while America has it wrong.
